Fox News Suggesting US Government Lied About 9/11

I do not subscribe to this theory, though I am interested to see what some on here think. This is concerning the other large World Trade Center building that collapsed, 7 World Trade Center. Fox News is suggesting that the building's destruction was more in line with demolition, not from fire and debris from the other collapsed towers, which is what the government reported.

Basically, because 7 World Trade Center was so secure, it would have had to have been a inside job, or so the old debate goes.

Fox News is taking heat from both the Right and Left on this issue.

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t/#more-137689

Yes, because we all know that Fox News is interested in nothing more than FACTS.

Which structural engineers is Fox News citing when they develop their opinion?

It's just something bright and shiny to distract their audience from the sh!t the Republicans are pulling in D.C.., like denying unemployment benefits.

National Geographic..maybe history channel?... I don't remember which, did a pretty extensive de-bunking of the various conspiracy theories out there. When it's broken down to the sheer magnitude of what would have to have been done with out ANYONE saying ANYTHING, every one of the theories falls apart. There would literally need to be thousands of people involved. We can't manage to keep secret benign gossip about foreign leaders, anyone thinking an undertaking of this size NO ONE would shoot their mouths off?

Now, do I think that there may have been supplementary shenanigans that brought down buildings, or maybe extra damage was caused after the attack so as to profit somehow.. insurance proceeds..what have you? sure. This is the US. no disaster goes by with out profiteers. But the govt. lining the buildings with explosives as a black flag operation is just stupid. anyone continuing to toe the conspiracy theory line is a tin foil hat wearing nut job.

Perhaps you're referring to Popular Mechanics? Their debunking, however, has largely been debunked, so to speak. Google "debunking Popular Mechanics debunking" and you'll find a wealth of information.

Here is an interesting article: The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

Perhaps you're referring to Popular Mechanics? Their debunking, however, has largely been debunked, so to speak. Google "debunking Popular Mechanics debunking" and you'll find a wealth of information.

Here is an interesting article: The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

---

No it was Nat Geographic. I think it debunked the debunkers of the pop mechanics. http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-4067/Overview

I'm sure there are plenty of truthers out there debunking that debunking too.

Again, no conspiracy theory can account for the thousands of people needed to be involved. A second shooter on a hill and a conspiracy perpetrated by a small high level group to hide the possibility that the mob or rouge elements in the government conspired to kill a sitting president? Ok, I can believe that is plausible..not sure I believe it, but i can see how it might happen. However, the thousands of people needed to pull of the various events and then keep quiet about it? I simply can not fathom. There is not enough money nor anyone with enough power to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

However, the thousands of people needed to pull of the various events and then keep quiet about it? I simply can not fathom. There is not enough money nor anyone with enough power to do it.

---

I absolutely agree with that, in theory, about the number of people needed to pull it off being unfathomable, but I do believe that, again theoretically, the government does have enough money and power to do it.

I don't necessarily believe that they made it happen, but moreso that they turned a blind eye to what was going to happen, as it certainly would create a justification for invading Iraq.

The article that I linked to above, however, raises many, many questions that ultimately make it impossible to believe the official story.

Here we get stuck between a rock and a hard place - the liars at Faux Snooze and the liars in our guvmint. Tough decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Here we get stuck between a rock and a hard place - the liars at Faux Snooze and the liars in our guvmint. Tough decision.

---

Maybe I should've said between the liars [[choose one) and the lieing liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

I absolutely agree with that, in theory, about the number of people needed to pull it off being unfathomable, but I do believe that, again theoretically, the government does have enough money and power to do it.

I don't necessarily believe that they made it happen, but moreso that they turned a blind eye to what was going to happen, as it certainly would create a justification for invading Iraq.

The article that I linked to above, however, raises many, many questions that ultimately make it impossible to believe the official story.

---

There ARE unfathomable numbers of people with Top Secret and above clearances who know the ramifications of revealing anything deemed sensitive by the government. If an event or experience is beyond their pay grade, it is commonly ignored for their very protection.

The entirety of the Military/Industrial complex works on a 'Need to Know' basis, so secrets are not easily leaked. Many underlings could be satiated by a cover story which would contain the bulk of public data. In the case of 9/11, there were multiple exercises being run all over the Eastern Seaboard that day...heck, they already had FEMA setup in New Jersey!


19 Imaginary Saudi Arabian box-cutting hi-jackers couldn't get NORAD to stand down for 2.5 hours. They also couldn't make steel melt with jet fuel, ever.


There wasn't an entire government involved, just a relative FEW individuals, working according to a plan [[not dissimilar to the 1962 Operation Northwood one that JFK put the kabosh on). The entire government only went along willingly, due the extraordinary culture of Top Secret and above. Those who opposed the leaders at the time were retired or worse.

If you remember, there was a clearinghouse of ethical military leadership during the time that Donald Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon. Lotsa good people decided to retire rather than face the other options presented to them. Going along with the plan wasn't the most attractive to many of them.



I think it is funny that some only consider this after it aired on the so-trusted FOX network. It has been common knowledge to the rest of us for many years.



Cheers, anyways!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannon

There wasn't an entire government involved, just a relative FEW individuals, working according to a plan [[not dissimilar to the 1962 Operation Northwood one that JFK put the kabosh on).

---

There are indeed similarities to Operation Northwoods. It is truly shocking to read some of the ideas proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, to see how far a government would go to justify invading another country, in that case Cuba.

Among the verbatim suggestions made by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in Operation Northwoods:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

In the related Operation Mongoose, the Department of Defense suggested that the U.S. could:

"create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."

In 1963 a Department of Defense document suggests that:

"A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an Organization of American States member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS."

Targets for that plan included Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago, as these were part of the British Commonwealth, which would most likely cause England to support a war against Cuba.

The same Department of Defense report suggested that the U.S. pay someone to attack a U.S. military base:

"The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

The idea that the U.S. could have played a role in 9/11 to gain support for its desired war with Iraq does not seem far-fetched to me.

Nor to anyone who dares to think for themselves, D'Lady.

By now, any argument forthcoming is from those in the know who have the most to lose [[and/or the heaviest consciences) or those very few and far between true believers. They're the ones who tend to frighten me the most, anyways!

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Basically, because 7 World Trade Center was so secure, it would have had to have been a inside job, or so the old debate goes.

---

Basically the debate exists because people use this example to support their beliefs on a variety of things. It was the most visible example of something that seemed artificial. I say "artificial" because the American public had at that time never seen a building collapse due to forced impact and intense fire. They've only seen implosions by controlled demolition and are very familiar with that imagery. People formulated their beliefs on what they think they know rather than actual engineering knowledge or the unique nature of the disaster.

People get hung up on the "steel doesn't melt by fire" argument and I'm not certain why. Perhaps it's terminology. Derform vs melt? Heck Detroit has at least dozens of case studies laying about. Check out the East Town theater pics. It was a typical multi-story residential fire with reasonably fire protected steel [[asbestos), and you are left with a mess of curling and twisting heavy steel beams in the aftermath. Steel caries building loads properly when it's in the rigid shape and temperature range that it was designed for. In the case of damage [[from a neighboring building or prolonged exposure to fire) it can become distorted and fail at taking the loads as it's designed for.

When one or beam fails because of the conditions placed on it, additional stresses are redistributed across other columns and beams in the structural grid. If those members are placed under stress as well, it can lead to failure in the entire system causing a collapse.

During a fire, you are not necesarilly safe in a steel building...just because it's steel. They build concrete stair towers with high fire ratings. But fire ratings have limits. 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour..... That means these materials fail. That means a fire door will eventually fail.

Personally, I'm not interested in the debate or why people think it happened. It's just interesting to hear what the armchair engineers will say aloud sometimes........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

the American public had at that time never seen a building collapse due to forced impact and intense fire.

---

Yes, that is very true!

The American public had never seen a building collapse in that way due to intense fire before primarily because a building had never in the history of the world ever collapsed in that way due to intense fire.

Yet three buildings collapsed that way that day due to intense fire. No building has ever collapsed that way from intense fire again since that day.

So to sum up, never in the history of the world -- three that day -- never again since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

Yes, that is very true!

The American public had never seen a building collapse in that way due to intense fire before primarily because a building had never in the history of the world ever collapsed in that way due to intense fire.

Yet three buildings collapsed that way that day due to intense fire. No building has ever collapsed that way from intense fire again since that day.

So to sum up, never in the history of the world -- three that day -- never again since.

---

So what are you trying to say, Downtown Lady?

Most buildings don't collapse due to fire because most buildings don't have their fucking fire protection knocked off by the impact of a 767 jet. I don't suppose you know a whole lot about spray-on fireproofing, do you?

But what do I know? I only studied this shit in school and made a career out of it. People DIED, and you pricks dismiss factual conclusions because it doesn't concur with your bullshit made-up uninformed opinion. Get over yourselves.

Back to the pretentious coffee shop discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

I say "artificial" because the American public had at that time never seen a building collapse due to forced impact and intense fire.

---

Actually nobody in the world has ever seen steel buildings collapse from fire. The first three in recorded history were WTC 1, 2 and 7.

And they not only collapsed, they melted into a pool of molten metal that burned until Christmas of 2001. Somebody hit the Google and show me where THAT happened before.

The WTC7 collapse was never explained by the USA government - it simply is not included in their report. There is NO official explanation or theory for WTC7.

I am not interested in the opinions of Sports Illustrated or Popular Mechanics or whatever media entertainment company...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So what are you trying to say, Downtown Lady?

Most buildings don't collapse due to fire because most buildings don't have their fucking fire protection knocked off by the impact of a 767 jet. I don't suppose you know a whole lot about spray-on fireproofing, do you?

But what do I know? I only studied this shit in school and made a career out of it. People DIED, and you pricks dismiss factual conclusions because it doesn't concur with your bullshit made-up uninformed opinion. Get over yourselves.

Back to the pretentious coffee shop discussion.

---

kind of nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mauser

And they not only collapsed, they melted into a pool of molten metal that burned until Christmas of 2001. Somebody hit the Google and show me where THAT happened before.

---

Yeah? You have photos from your own site investigation?

I don't recall any of the ACTUAL ENGINEERS conducting the investigation saying a God damned thing about "molten pools of metal".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mauser

kind of nasty.

---

Nasty, P.E. to you.

Draw me a stress-strain diagram for A36 steel at 1200 degrees F, and I'll be a bit nicer.

The problem with you conspiracy nuts is that you don't present a single lick of engineering science to justify your pre-ordained opinions. I suggest you obtain, read, and understand a copy of AISC Design Guide 19. Otherwise, you're no better than Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo via videotape. The difference is, Bill Frist was at least qualified as a medical doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Nasty, P.E. to you.

Draw me a stress-strain diagram for A36 steel at 1200 degrees F, and I'll be a bit nicer.

The problem with you conspiracy nuts is that you don't present a single lick of engineering science to justify your pre-ordained opinions. I suggest you obtain, read, and understand a copy of AISC Design Guide 19. Otherwise, you're no better than Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo via videotape. The difference is, Bill Frist was at least qualified as a medical doctor.

---

Come on Ghettopalmetto, lighten up. Don't let education, professional training and experience and reasoned logic get in the way of a good old-fashioned DetroitYes nutty conspiracy theory. :D

Oh yeah, as if we own this one...and the other official stories that Mauser and I continue to find suspicious.


Ghettopalmetto has nothing to stand on except the abominable silence that his professional friends acquiesced, and obviously a distinct LACK of knowledge. There was molten steel found after two weeks in the pit...with no understanding from anyone why that could possibly be, since the energy necessary to maintain steel in liquid form for that duration wasn't available from any conventional source.

Tell me how far along a time/temperature/pressure analysis you'd have to go, Ghetto, before finding the amount of added energy which would allow such a result?!

That is why some have postulated that thermite and thermate explosives were used, and I personally waited in the long lines which occurred in the strange security shutdowns in the two weeks leading up to this False Flag event. THAT is when many believe the explosives were installed in the building.

Some have even gone as far as to guess that some form of directed energy beam weapon was used...since possibly at least one overshot toasted a number of vehicles in a parking lot two blocks away in a way that is unexplainable otherwise.

So, all your fervor aside, Ghettopalmetto, there are still too many holes in the official story for the likes of Mauser and I to EVER accept what is published. There were also MANY reports of explosions at and below ground level that cannot be anything other than foundation-elimination for the planned demolition of all three buildings. Nothing from the upper level missile/plane strikes could've blown-out the lobbies and sub-levels as they were.

My Thinking Friend in NYC, who lived two blocks away from the WTC...and is a world-renowned 'golden-eared' recording engineer...told me the sounds made when the buildings came down were the most horrible he'd ever heard...as if two great zippers were coming undone. Many charges being sequentially exploded could make such a rapid ripping sound.


As for Building Seven...I'm curious to know if Ghettopalmetto understands that the BBC reported that it 'came down', roughly thirty minutes BEFORE it fell! It was standing in the background as their female reporter read that script a bit early.



It is easy to get upset over this...anyone who looks directly at the data and timeline yet DOESN'T get torqued is simply not human. They are in denial, at the very least.



Yet those who dare speak up about the collection of inconsistencies, IN THE LIGHT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE PENTAGON/CIA MINDSET THROUGH THE PROOF OF "OPERATION NORTHWOODS" IN 1962, are held up to be cranks, kooks, and cranial-breeze sufferers.

I won't stand for it. The insanity is nearly wholly contained within the walls of the Pentagon and all of their hidden caves. Mere men like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowicz, and GHW Bush [[not his Wdupe of a son)...and the occasional female like Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton...continue along the path of destruction, death, and disaster. They will get theirs for following along the insane path of economic growth through waging war.


9/11 was an inside job. It has been said so often, it is almost a cliche. Almost as easy for the average person to dismiss as...say...any conspiracy theory. No matter HOW obvious it is that the official story is merely the weakest cover for a conspiracy ever imagined.

It is almost as ridiculous as the magic bullet theory from 1963...doesn't anyone else wonder why SO many of the men involved in that old cover-up became president in the forty years which followed that coup?! Both GHW Bush and Richard M. Nixon were in Dallas that day, but conveniently forgot every time they were asked.

Now THAT is suspicious. Same group did the gold robbery that we call 9/11, while some want to argue tiny minutiae because it is all they can grasp. Congratulations on your engineering degree and career in steel, Ghetto, it has made you myopic and a little dull. That is not solely your fault, they need you to be that way to be an effective engineer.



Cheers anyways, there is still room for you to learn and grow some too. I know I'm eager for the next thing I get to learn today...maybe YOU should be open to new things, too.

Some have even gone as far as to guess that some form of directed energy beam weapon was used...

So, it was the Martians?

Is that why they're trying to plan a trip to Mars? To invade and retaliate?

The American public had never seen a building collapse in that way due to intense fire before primarily because a building had never in the history of the world ever collapsed in that way due to intense fire.

Actually nobody in the world has ever seen steel buildings collapse from fire.

What the heck are you talking about? I've personally seen steel reinforced buildings collapse from intense heat. In Detroit at that. It's fairly common.


But go ahead and take a another swig of the Koolaide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Some have even gone as far as to guess that some form of directed energy beam weapon was used...

So, it was the Martians?

Is that why they're trying to plan a trip to Mars? To invade and retaliate?

---

You are funny this morning, Meddle. What did they put in your coffee?!


Directed energy beam weapons have been in development ever since they stole all of Tesla's papers after his timely death. HAARP is one such experiment. It succeeded, and they installed other versions all around the Earth. Depending upon the frequencies and power level, it's effects range from pacifying an entire population with soothing harmonies [[not likely that they'd use it this way, rather the exact opposite of aggravating and sleep-depriving 'em instead) to vaporizing anything...with useful applications of friendly weather manipulation like rain-making and energy transfer without wires somewhere inbetween.


They use OTHER Tesla-derived technology to get to Mars and back.


Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannon

Oh yeah, as if we own this one...and the other official stories that Mauser and I continue to find suspicious.


Ghettopalmetto has nothing to stand on except the abominable silence that his professional friends acquiesced, and obviously a distinct LACK of knowledge. There was molten steel found after two weeks in the pit...with no understanding from anyone why that could possibly be, since the energy necessary to maintain steel in liquid form for that duration wasn't available from any conventional source.

Tell me how far along a time/temperature/pressure analysis you'd have to go, Ghetto, before finding the amount of added energy which would allow such a result?!

That is why some have postulated that thermite and thermate explosives were used, and I personally waited in the long lines which occurred in the strange security shutdowns in the two weeks leading up to this False Flag event. THAT is when many believe the explosives were installed in the building.

Some have even gone as far as to guess that some form of directed energy beam weapon was used...since possibly at least one overshot toasted a number of vehicles in a parking lot two blocks away in a way that is unexplainable otherwise.

So, all your fervor aside, Ghettopalmetto, there are still too many holes in the official story for the likes of Mauser and I to EVER accept what is published. There were also MANY reports of explosions at and below ground level that cannot be anything other than foundation-elimination for the planned demolition of all three buildings. Nothing from the upper level missile/plane strikes could've blown-out the lobbies and sub-levels as they were.

My Thinking Friend in NYC, who lived two blocks away from the WTC...and is a world-renowned 'golden-eared' recording engineer...told me the sounds made when the buildings came down were the most horrible he'd ever heard...as if two great zippers were coming undone. Many charges being sequentially exploded could make such a rapid ripping sound.


As for Building Seven...I'm curious to know if Ghettopalmetto understands that the BBC reported that it 'came down', roughly thirty minutes BEFORE it fell! It was standing in the background as their female reporter read that script a bit early.



It is easy to get upset over this...anyone who looks directly at the data and timeline yet DOESN'T get torqued is simply not human. They are in denial, at the very least.



Yet those who dare speak up about the collection of inconsistencies, IN THE LIGHT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE PENTAGON/CIA MINDSET THROUGH THE PROOF OF "OPERATION NORTHWOODS" IN 1962, are held up to be cranks, kooks, and cranial-breeze sufferers.

I won't stand for it. The insanity is nearly wholly contained within the walls of the Pentagon and all of their hidden caves. Mere men like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowicz, and GHW Bush [[not his Wdupe of a son)...and the occasional female like Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton...continue along the path of destruction, death, and disaster. They will get theirs for following along the insane path of economic growth through waging war.


9/11 was an inside job. It has been said so often, it is almost a cliche. Almost as easy for the average person to dismiss as...say...any conspiracy theory. No matter HOW obvious it is that the official story is merely the weakest cover for a conspiracy ever imagined.

It is almost as ridiculous as the magic bullet theory from 1963...doesn't anyone else wonder why SO many of the men involved in that old cover-up became president in the forty years which followed that coup?! Both GHW Bush and Richard M. Nixon were in Dallas that day, but conveniently forgot every time they were asked.

Now THAT is suspicious. Same group did the gold robbery that we call 9/11, while some want to argue tiny minutiae because it is all they can grasp. Congratulations on your engineering degree and career in steel, Ghetto, it has made you myopic and a little dull. That is not solely your fault, they need you to be that way to be an effective engineer.



Cheers anyways, there is still room for you to learn and grow some too. I know I'm eager for the next thing I get to learn today...maybe YOU should be open to new things, too.

---

Like I said, not a shred of engineering science in this post. Just hysterical postulating based on nothing at all. Do you think your recording engineer friend's testimony would hold up in a court of law? I may not have a golden ear, but I also don't think that buildings are falling every time I hear Lady Gaga.